Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Joelinton7]

Yawn 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

16 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

And who sets the price, and what appeals are allowed if the price doesn't reflect the value to the owning party?

 

 

edit: So it's an auction? Was that what happened in the Chelsea case?

 

 

 

It wouldn’t be a forced sale - they wouldn’t ’have’ to sell.  But their asset wouldn’t be able to play in the PL.  So in effect, it sort of is a forced sale.  

[TheBrownBottle]

12 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Never going to happen in a million years man 

There is a tiny chance it occurs, but I just don’t think it will.  It would create a diplomatic issue over something which ultimately of very little importance. 

[et tu brute]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There is a tiny chance it occurs, but I just don’t think it will.  It would create a diplomatic issue over something which ultimately of very little importance. 

Got as much chance of it happening as Sunderland having a sell out midweek crowd 

[Jonas]

Its like the opposite of the game monopoly.

In that game you can buy a ton of pretend things with pretend money that has no value in the real world, you can only pretend to be rich.

Whereas with football now you can have as much real life actual money that in any other walk of life has face-value value and you can buy anything you like but in the game of football its meaningless and worth nothing and you have to pretend to be poor.

 

[Stifler]

I told you all about this last week.

 

The amendment still hasn’t passed review in the House of Commons, they started debating amendments yesterday, but didn’t get past what the bill should be titled as.

Anyway, one of the most prominent Lords speaking in the House of Lords and debating it, is the Lord of Whitley Bay, who is a Newcastle United fan.

I told you all that I had emailed him, and emailed another Lord about this amendment, but all I got was ridicule.

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Stifler

[McDog]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It wouldn’t be a forced sale - they wouldn’t ’have’ to sell.  But their asset wouldn’t be able to play in the PL.  So in effect, it sort of is a forced sale.  

So they promote someone to take their place and they play in non-league? That is absurd.

 

[Stifler]

It would really even force a sale per se. All it would mean is that control is handed from PIF to a private equity firm, like Man City is.

Man City would only fall foul of this rule because a director has a role within the Abi Dhabi government, if he was either removed as director, or his role, then they would comply.

 

All of this is assuming that this amendment passes. Just 1 Lord or Baroness objecting to it within the House of Lords will be enough to block it, and then it’s still got to go to the House of Commons to pass there as well.

The article even says it is very unlikely to pass, and it’s just a Lord who is a Liverpool fan pushing his luck.

I was watching them talk about this bill last night, and they were arguing over what it should be titled, and then some Lords and even Karen Brady reminded everyone that some aspects could lead to litigation, and also wouldn’t be in compliance with UEFA, and FIFA laws. This was a discussion over the title of the bill, and the inclusion of the word ‘sustainable’.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 hours ago, McDog said:

So they promote someone to take their place and they play in non-league? That is absurd.

 

If it happened we wouldn't be able to play at any level.  TBF removing clubs from the football league isn't a new thing.

 

It isn't going to happen, though.  Not worth worrying about, as fun as hypotheticals can be.

[Sima]

3 hours ago, Stifler said:

I told you all about this last week.

 

The amendment still hasn’t passed review in the House of Commons, they started debating amendments yesterday, but didn’t get past what the bill should be titled as.

Anyway, one of the most prominent Lords speaking in the House of Lords and debating it, is the Lord of Whitley Bay, who is a Newcastle United fan.

I told you all that I had emailed him, and emailed another Lord about this amendment, but all I got was ridicule.

 

 

 

Not very becoming of a lord to ridicule you.

 

The class divide is real.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, Sima said:

Not very becoming of a lord to ridicule you.

 

The class divide is real.

Baron Parkinson is a Tory bastard, so not that shocking  

[McDog]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

If it happened we wouldn't be able to play at any level.  TBF removing clubs from the football league isn't a new thing.

 

It isn't going to happen, though.  Not worth worrying about, as fun as hypotheticals can be.

 

 

Thank you by the way for the education. Sorry for so many questions, I'm learning. So it isn't an EPL registration, it is a registration to play anywhere in England at any level of the pyramid?

[Stifler]

16 minutes ago, McDog said:

Thank you by the way for the education. Sorry for so many questions, I'm learning. So it isn't an EPL registration, it is a registration to play anywhere in England at any level of the pyramid?

They seem to be indicating that it would apply to the top 5 leagues in England only.

 

It won’t happen though. In the same proposed amendment, it forbids anyone from government being an owner and/or a board member of a club, with no distinction between foreign governments, and our own. This means that Karen Brady would have to choose between her daytime job at West Ham, or her role within the House of Lords. She alone obviously isn’t going to vote for it, and she would be supported by others who would see it as overreach.

[McDog]

Just now, Stifler said:

They seem to be indicating that it would apply to the top 5 leagues in England only.

 

It won’t happen though. In the same proposed amendment, it forbids anyone from government being an owner and/or a board member of a club, with no distinction between foreign governments, and our own. This means that Karen Brady would have to choose between her daytime job at West Ham, or her role within the House of Lords. She alone obviously isn’t going to vote for it, and she would be supported by others who would see it as overreach.

 

 

Thanks Stifler. Sounds crazy.

[TheBrownBottle]

33 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Thank you by the way for the education. Sorry for so many questions, I'm learning. So it isn't an EPL registration, it is a registration to play anywhere in England at any level of the pyramid?

No bother at all mate  - outside the top five tiers of English football is effectively where the semi-pros and amateurs sit (though the fifth tier is a mix of professional and semi-pro).  Because tier six down is semi-pro and amateur, and they're concerned about ownership and governance, I can't imagine it would be applied to every level of the pyramid.

 

The Lords can't block but only delay bills - so the Commons can re-present the Bill either untouched or with any amendments suggested by the Lords which have been recommended.  This is regular in Parliament - some of the lords are former Law Lords (judges - the HoL used to be the highest court in the country until the UK Supreme Court was created in 2009).  And others are ex-judges and lawyers who have significant careers and expertise in law.  So the often re-draft proposed Bills and send them back to the Commons with their suggested changes.  Often these are the result of knowledge of legislation and practice.  While I'd like to see the Lords abolished, this is a function which would be difficult to replace.

 

The issue comes when you get suggested amendments like the ones in this Bill, which oversteps review and redraft and becomes an effective change of policy.  At that point, these amendments are usually rejected (to get through the Commons, the Bill would likely need govt support).  I can't see the govt supporting these amendments.

 

This happens regularly, but usually doesn't get much visibility as it doesn't impact the back pages of the newspapers.  Because it relates to football, it has gained more visibility.

[Steve Charlton]

7 hours ago, Ronson333 said:

A proposal to ban state-controlled clubs from English football has been submitted in an amendment to the Football Governance Bill that will introduce an independent regulator for the sport.

The move, which would have to be agreed by parliament, would mean that Manchester City and Newcastle United would be forced to change their ownership in order to be granted a licence by the regulator.

Lord Bassam of Brighton, a Labour peer, has put forward the amendment to the legislation going through the House of Lords which would prevent professional English clubs being owned or controlled by sovereign wealth funds or government ministers from any country.

Newcastle are owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) while Manchester City’s owner Sheikh Mansour is the vice-president ofthe United Arab Emirates.

For the amendment to become law, it would also have to receive backing from MPs in the House of Commons, which in practice will only happen if the government agrees with it. Whitehall insiders insist the chance of the amendment being agreed is small, but some Premier League clubs have previously urged the government to introduce such a ban.

 

Bassam’s amendment states the legislation should read: “No state-controlled club may be granted an operating licence, and any affected club must satisfy the IFR [independent football regulator] that they have divested themselves of their state-control before applying for an operating licence.

Newcastle, who lost to West Ham on Monday, have been majority-owned by PIF for three years

 

“A state-controlled club is one which is wholly or majority-owned by individual(s), entities, or entities controlled by individual(s) who are deemed by the IFR or the secretary of state to be under the influence of any state actor, including but not limited to: members of any government or their immediate family, a head of state or their immediate family, diplomats, lobbyists, or other state representatives, or their immediate family, and sovereign wealth funds.”

The bill was debated in the House of Lords on Wednesday but peers have yet to discuss Bassam’s amendment.

Read more

MI6 ‘involvement’ in Newcastle United takeover is ‘red flag’ for regulator

Baroness Karren Brady, the West Ham United vice-chairman, told the House of Lords on Wednesday that the government had ignored warnings from Uefa and handed even more power to the regulator over parachute payments to clubs relegated from the Premier League.

“Despite those warnings from Uefa, the government have made the backstop even wider and broader in scope, to now include parachute payments, which are fundamental to competitive balance,” she said.

 

“They have removed the incentives for a football-led deal, which goes specifically against the advice of Uefa. So it appears that the government have ignored that letter and its warnings. Uefa spells out that the ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from Uefa and teams from competition.”

Brady said she supported another amendment which says nothing in the operation of the regulator should “compromise the ability of football clubs, competition organisers or national teams to comply with their obligations to, or participate in competitions of, international governing bodies including Uefa and Fifa”.

West Ham vice-chairman Brady warned of some proposed changes making the league less exciting

 

Brady said she was concerned that the regulator could damage the Premier League. She added: “This is a risky business. It is a risk trying to get promoted; it is a risk trying not to get relegated; it is a risk trying to get into the Champions League; and it is a risk trying to get into Europe and stay there. All football owners know these risks, and each one has a different way of managing, calculating and understanding them.

“Some take on debt; some put in equity; some sell assets — their footballers — if the risk does not pay off, but they go again.

“The problem with the idea of sustainability, which is undefined in this Bill, being the purpose of the regulator is that it can get in the way of ambition and aspiration, of calculated risk taking, and all the things that make the Premier League such an exciting and competitive league.”

Feels like a last throw of the dice with them knowing whats coming with a new stadium for us and a independent regulator that could well and truly put a stop to all of the cartels strokes.They are terrified